Confrontation of building materials is pointless

Construction is subject to ever-stricter norms and guidelines. However, Antti Aaltonen, Project Manager at SRV, says that the company does not want to make decisions on which materials to use in construction on the basis of politics or regulations.

“The rule of thumb is to select the material that is suitable for the purpose at hand. From the perspective of construction companies, the confrontation of building materials is pointless, because there is no one correct alternative”, says Aaltonen.

He says that the issue should be determined with a close eye on design and focusing on the user and usability.

“Most good and well-functioning buildings are so called hybrids: for instance, the hall buildings might feature concrete pillars and wooden beams, connected with steel fasteners. Even when you’re making a wooden building, you also need concrete and steel”, says Aaltonen.

Well, then, what about competition between materials? Wouldn’t it be good to have consistent criteria for materials to ensure impartial and open competition?

“Ideally, construction companies should have three or more viable frame alternatives to choose from. All of these should be just as good — concepts that are equally complete and easy to implement. However, at present, concrete is clearly the dominant material.”

In line with its strategy, SRV is always among the first in its field to adopt new innovations, and this is true of building materials, too.

“We’re currently working on truly impressive, but also challenging wood projects. For instance, wood will be used more widely in construction in the future, and not just in detached houses. We already have references in this type of construction, giving us a competitive edge when negotiating for new projects of this kind. Back in the day, the same competitive edge helped us with alliance projects too”, says Aaltonen.

The story was originally published in 2017 Annual Report.